I really don't buy this explanation. Federer can make a case for being one of the best servers on tour right now. He has won 79% of his first service points this year, and 89% of his service games. That's good enough for second place on the tour in both categories (behind Raonic and Isner respectively). And it's better than his career averages-- in fact I think those numbers equal his career best. His first serve % this year is also higher than his career average.

It's possible that these great numbers mask the fact that his serve deserts him when he needs it most, but I'm dubious, especially since you'd expect the serve to decline less with age than other aspects of the game.

It has more to do with other players improving than Federer's decline. Now players can put him in defensive position without giving up that advantage during a rally. The key to Federer today is he has to be more aggressive than he used to, in return, he will be less consistent. Federer has to accept this trade off, and be more aggressive than he used to.

Click to expand...

+1 for some reason, people never want to give credit to the other player. Federer has a losing record against Djokovic this year. Does that mean Federer is declining - no, it means Djokovic has improved, hence his record season.

+1 for some reason, people never want to give credit to the other player. Federer has a losing record against Djokovic this year. Does that mean Federer is declining - no, it means Djokovic has improved, hence his record season.

Click to expand...

I agree. It seems as though, judging from the last two months, Djok and Ralph have paid a heavy price for their '11 battles. As I posted at least once, it reminds me of the heavyweight boxing scenario of the 70's. Ali/Frazier 1thru3 created an opening for Foreman to become kingpin, only to be undone by a rejuvenated, craftier Ali in the Rumble in the Jungle. Ali came back strong, Frazier disappeared and Foreman was crushed for a long while. Can Fed reprise Ali's role for a return to the top spot? We'll see in '12!

I agree. It seems as though, judging from the last two months, Djok and Ralph have paid a heavy price for their '11 battles. As I posted at least once, it reminds me of the heavyweight boxing scenario of the 70's. Ali/Frazier 1thru3 created an opening for Foreman to become kingpin, only to be undone by a rejuvenated, craftier Ali in the Rumble in the Jungle. Ali came back strong, Frazier disappeared and Foreman was crushed for a long while. Can Fed reprise Ali's role for a return to the top spot? We'll see in '12!

Click to expand...

Federer says he's still improving. I think the biggest question for Federer in 2012 is his mental ability. When he is 100% focused, he is clearly the best tennis player in the world. Better than Rafa and Djoko's 100%.

Federer says he's still improving. I think the biggest question for Federer in 2012 is his mental ability. When he is 100% focused, he is clearly the best tennis player in the world. Better than Rafa and Djoko's 100%.

Click to expand...

Yes, and now word (not confirmed) that Mirka is pregnant. Boy (pun not intended), '12 has a heavy serving on Fed's plate...Project 17, DC, Olympics and added parenthood? If anyone can do it, that would be SexiMasterClassRogi!

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this "evolution" issue bcoz we have no Marty McFly/Back to the Future Delorean to transport Muzza to the 60's nor Laver to the new millenium. Suffice to say, were Laver born in the postwar era, scientific studies have shown he would be 2-4 cm taller (likewise Murray would be that much shorter). As to strength, have you ever seen pictures of Laver and his "lobster-like" appendage hanging from his left shoulder? The guy had blacksmith forearms! Fitness? Again, an evolutionary argument. Give Laver the earnings potential Murray enjoys and I'm sure a dietary/exercise team would have surrounded him? Equipment? Laver could do things with an 80-inch wood frame Murray can't even dream of?

Want me to go on? Laver>>>>>>>>Murray in a laugher, probably with a bagel and a breadstick!

Click to expand...

That's silly. Why can't you just accept that players today are faster and stronger than those of the 60s and 70s? The former just could not compete with the firepower of today's players. It's no shame to admit that. Laver was the undisputed great of his era but he firmly belongs to that era and nowhere else. If peak Laver was transported from his era to the present and faced Murray (or any other top player) he would barely be able to get his racquet on any of his serves! Laver himself would be the first to admit that.
The comparison is just pointless.

Believe as you wish...the two eras are incomparable. Tennis is not a "measured" sport. Usain Bolt beats Jesse Owens, no question asked but why?
Evolution is the answer. Millenia man is bigger, faster, stronger than 30's man. Training, nutrition, technology all have improved.

Tennis talent is not a "measurable" commodity. My point was if Murray and Laver ever met on a level playing field...Murray in the 60's OR Laver in the 10's, the result wouldn't be close. Bankroll Laver's talent with the $$$ now available and add the genetic evolution of man in affluent societies and you would have a six-foot-or-so player for the ages competing with Fed for GOAT status. Harness Murray with 60's shamateurism and genetics, wood racquet technology and low-grade training of those times and he's no different than the top 10er's of that era.

It's nothing that complicated. Try having kids and staying as focused on ANYTHING as before you had them. And as your kids get older and you have to worry about more things like their education, health (vaccines, diet, athletics, etc. all rolled into one), finances (well, not so much in Fed's case).... it only gets harder.

I don't even think about starting new businesses anymore now that I have kids, just maintaining my current business interests and giving time to my kids is full time as it is.

It's a testament to his pure talent and drive (even fading drive) that he still is near the top of the game.

Do you think Nadal hits with the same abandon that he had when he was a 18 yr old pirate-in-waiting?

If you watch those very videos, notice how slow his opponents are moving and reacting to his shotmaking. Players are better today having had yo improve to meet the bar that Roger set.

All that matters is how he is doing with respect to the competition today. Point me to any other player from Rogers generation who is doing better.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing Roger attempt and make the same types of shots he made in 03-06, though. It's Roger who's not reacting as well. The Federer we've seen since the 2007 Australian Open is mostly a "game plan" guy. He only rarely hits the "inventive" shot, or goes up a gear and starts blasting the ball from mid-air. He doesn't have as much variety as before. I mean, he still has some variety, but it seems much more contrived now.

The wrist flicks and carved backhand drop shots out of nowhere from before have been replaced with predictable forehand drop shots and "squash" shots, when he's on the full stretch.

Stylistically, he's just different. He still gets strong results with this new style, but for whatever reason, he has been a different player from 2007 on. That doesn't necessarily mean if he were playing his old style that he'd be dominating like before...but he'd be more fun to watch IMO.

I'm not seeing Roger attempt and make the same types of shots he made in 03-06, though. It's Roger who's not reacting as well. The Federer we've seen since the 2007 Australian Open is mostly a "game plan" guy. He only rarely hits the "inventive" shot, or goes up a gear and starts blasting the ball from mid-air. He doesn't have as much variety as before. I mean, he still has some variety, but it seems much more contrived now.

The wrist flicks and carved backhand drop shots out of nowhere from before have been replaced with predictable forehand drop shots and "squash" shots, when he's on the full stretch.

Stylistically, he's just different. He still gets strong results with this new style, but for whatever reason, he has been a different player from 2007 on. That doesn't necessarily mean if he were playing his old style that he'd be dominating like before...but he'd be more fun to watch IMO.

Click to expand...

Sure. But here is a healthy dose of reality from an unlikely source on this phenomenon of not playing as freely once the weight of certain expectations set in and a player's game matures -

“Is much easier when you are a teenager, I think. When you have 17 or 18, everything is easier. You play with no pressure. You can win, you can lose, everything is fine. That's a different mentality. You can play more aggressive. For everybody is the same history I think, no?

When you arrive, you hit all the balls like crazy and without think, without pressure. When you are there (indicating at a high level) you start to think a little bit more about you have to play this shot, you have to play another shot, I can't lose this match, I have to win this match for sure.

That’s a little bit more problems. When you are coming up, you play quarterfinals perfect; you play semifinals fantastic; you play final very good; and if you win, is unbelievable. So when you are there, you play quarterfinals, say, Well, is good. Is not my tournament, but you are going back very happy at home.

So that is different view and different perspective of the game. So the pressure is higher when you are in the top. Seems like can be a different thing, but believe me, that's what happen.” - Rafael Nadal (stealing this from Tignor's article where he quoted this)

Click to expand...

Take the teenager part out (since its about Nadal in his early stages - when he was a teenager) and supplant it with Roger's ascent.

^^ Btw, I'm not arguing with you that vintage Roger wasn't more fun to watch. Just saying that as far as a realistic career is concerned, this talk of decline is really overblown when he really is the only credible threat to the current prime players.

I agree his decline is overblown. He is past his prime but not enormously weaker either. That said Federer in his prime would never end a year 1-4 against Djokovic. Federer has none of the matchup problems with Djokovic that Nadal has, and is just a better player if both are in their primes, especialy on any medium to fast court (Djokovic might be slightly better on rebound ace, and close to the same level on clay).

I agree his decline is overblown. He is past his prime but not enormously weaker either. That said Federer in his prime would never end a year 1-4 against Djokovic. Federer has none of the matchup problems with Djokovic that Nadal has, and is just a better player if both are in their primes, especialy on any medium to fast court (Djokovic might be slightly better on rebound ace, and close to the same level on clay).

Click to expand...

Rebound Ace? Fed won on that twice at AO'04 & '06. I think you mean Plexicushion that the Aussies installed in '07. Djok's advantage will be determined by how fast the committee decides to make the Plexicushion.

Rebound Ace? Fed won on that twice at AO'04 & '06. I think you mean Plexicushion that the Aussies installed in '07. Djok's advantage will be determined by how fast the committee decides to make the Plexicushion.

I agree his decline is overblown. He is past his prime but not enormously weaker either. That said Federer in his prime would never end a year 1-4 against Djokovic. Federer has none of the matchup problems with Djokovic that Nadal has, and is just a better player if both are in their primes, especialy on any medium to fast court (Djokovic might be slightly better on rebound ace, and close to the same level on clay).

I spray myself with a touch of Eau de Fed and cleanse myself with the nutriting milk from FairMirka's breasts. Then i pray mightily hard for the Fed Express to once again bring the rain and dominate ATP for the coming year.

Decline? After the U.S. Open Federer went undefeated for the remainder of the year. Something the best 8 mens in tennis couldn't accomplish this year. IMO it's just might be a little bit too soon to say.

Decline? After the U.S. Open Federer went undefeated for the remainder of the year. Something the best 8 mens in tennis couldn't accomplish this year. IMO it's just might be a little bit too soon to say.

Click to expand...

The easy definition of "decline" used by most posters on TT is in number of major titles. When the bar is set so high, any dropoff is magnified.

I think Fed did have a plateau in '10, with the losses in major QFs to Sod & Berd. In great fashion, he addressed that issue with his alliance with P'Cone. The Renaissance began with USO SF MPs vs Djok, not converted but proof he was just about there after only two months together. The Fall swing was outstanding and things looked great til the AO'11 SF. That's when the Djok juggernaut commenced. Djok will not sneak up on Fed in '12. I hope his training regimen is focused on developing what he needs to get over the small humps he stumbled on in '11. He's still right there!